1

Business core integrated program essay

Topic: Are scientific management and human relations approaches still applicable to organizations of the twenty first century?

Students name: Pham uy !hoa "lass: !#1B$A Students code: 1%&1B$#&'(

Table of contents:
) )ntroduction************************ ***% ))+ Scientific management, the benefit and its criticism in modern world*************************++++)))+ uman relations approach, is it still empirical rather than assumption?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++# ).+ "onclusion************************/ .+0eferences*********************** ****************************++(

Are scientific management and human relations approaches still applicable to organizations of the %1st century?
Introduction:
Scientific management and uman relations approach are two important theories for managers in managing the wor1force2 howe3er, nowadays, with the 3ast impact of changing in technology, communication, human rights and globalization, these ha3e lead to significant changes for practical managers in today wor1+ This paper will discuss about the two theories and discuss about the consensus of the applicable impact in the %1st century+

Scientific management, the benefit and its criticism in modern world

$rederic1 4inslow Taylor is a contro3ersial figure in management history and the founder of scientific management+ is inno3ations in industrial engineering, particularly in time and motion studies, paid off in dramatic impro3ements in producti3ity+ At the same time, he has been blamed for destroying the soul of wor1, of dehumanizing factories, ma1ing men into automatons, and not possibly create the sense of social connection, hence, his theory still cause contro3ersial issue in modern world, although his practice has been apply in many factors in business world + )n his theory , he stated that 5Time studies $unctional or specialized super3ision Standardization of tools and implements Standardization of wor1 methods Separate Planning function 6anagement by e7ception principle The use of 5slide8rules and similar time8sa3ing de3ices5 9Taylor, $rederic1 4+, 1(:;<, and de3eloped four principles of scientific management: 1+ The de3elopment of a true science %+ The scientific selection of the wor1man -+ The scientific education and de3elopment of the wor1man ;+ )ntimate and friendly cooperation between the management and the men+

Taylors Scientific 6anagement is not hard to recognize within the modern day wor1place+ The car and computer manufacturing plants, the wor1 en3ironments we go to e3eryday, the hospitals we are treated in and e3en some of the restaurants we might eat in, = almost all of them function more efficiently due to the application of Scientific 6anagement+ )n fact, these methods of wor1ing seem so commonplace and so logical to a citizen of the modern world that it is almost impossible to accept that they were re3olutionary only 1&& years ago+ >ne of the biggest users of scientific 6anagement in the %1 st century is 6c?onalds+ This is an American fast food restaurant that has spread its business successfully worldwide+ >ne of the main aspects of scientific management that 6c?onalds ha3e implemented into their business is the $ordist management style where e3eryone wor1s according to an assembly line+ Taylors main ob@ecti3e was to create the best man for the @ob and hence the di3ision of labour and ultimately this brought about specialization amongst employees+ The method in which 6c?onalds for e7ample create their hamburger is a form of des1illing and di3ision of labour+ $or e7ample they ha3e simplified the @ob by firstly grilling the burger, putting in lettuce and tomatoes, adding sauce etc, putting onto rolls and then wrapping it up 9Andrze@ uczyns1i,%&&;<+ As you can see that this is a brea1down of the @ob and by ha3ing indi3iduals do each tas1 it not only impro3es efficiency but also creates specialized personnel+ >ther aspects such as coo1ing times, drin1s dispensers, $rench fries machines, and programmed cash are all methods that are used to limit time that is needed to complete the tas1 and hence showing that aspects of Taylor, $ord and Ailbreth ha3e been adapted+ This shows that in the %1st century 6c?onalds has successfully adapted scientific management into its company and it can safely be said that without this management style they wouldnt probably be in such a dominant and efficient position in the mar1et+ owe3er despite there being the fact the adaptation of scientific management in 6c?onalds has made it successful there are huge criticisms of its method+ $or e7ample indi3iduals that ha3e ad3anced s1ills are limited to highly simplified tas1s and hence their s1ills are wasted+ There is also the fact that by denying them the opportunity to present their s1ills it is denying them their human rights+ There are also the more general disad3antages of 6c?onalds such as the tas1s are repetiti3e and boring and hence employees are not moti3ated to do the @ob whole heartedly+ >ne 3iew, e7pressed by Gale Cengage (1998) is that TaylorBs principles called for e7treme specialization among wor1ers, which many managers considered impractical and o3erly comple7+ Additionally, organized laborBs campaign against Taylorism made some

employers hesitant to endorse it2 wal1outs were common when Taylorism was introduced into factories+ Among these, one particular stands out: allowing employees to specialize in a certain tas1 can lead to long term increasing producti3ity, but it does not pro3ide any @ob satisfaction+ This 3iew has been successfully supported by the Theorist Abraham 6aslow 9 ierarchy of needs< and $rederic1 erzberg 9 ygiene<+ )t was 6aslow who stated that money is the basic need of an employee , but when employees are satisfied those needs from bottom tiers of 6aslow hierarchy, they need to mo3e to further de3elopment needs2 security, society, sense of fulfillment to name but a few+ erzberg de3eloped a theory that contradicted Taylors ideas as he de3eloped C@ob enrichment+ erzberg stated that there are two factors that could moti3ate an indi3idual, ygiene and 6oti3ator+ e Duoted as saying that hygiene factors, once fulfilled, will remo3e @ob dissatisfaction but will not moti3ate and in order to moti3ate the moti3ator factors ha3e to be fulfilled+ This goes against Taylors ideas of Ewor1ers are @ust there for the moneyF as erzbergs analysis pro3ed that money is not a moti3ating factor+ )n addition, specialization in one @ob can causes a huge contro3ersial issue in modern world+ $or e7ample, indi3iduals that ha3e ad3anced s1ills are limited to highly simplified tas1s and their s1ills are wasted, also it ma1es employees do the same tas1 in e3ery single day, hence, the tas1s are repetiti3e and boring, so these tas1s are no longer moti3ate to do @obs whole heartedly+ )nstead of focusing on other factors that can support @ob satisfaction, specialization pro3ides opportunities for employees to get further and further away from what is the fundamentally the most important issues for each indi3idual: human rights+ Another problem causes from wea1ness in Scientific 6anagement theory is that high specialization hinders employees to adapt to new situations, in the %1st "entury employers do not only want wor1ers to be efficient they must also e7hibit fle7ibility+ )n the modern day and age in order for businesses to establish a foothold in mar1ets and to be competiti3e they ha3e to adapt to change and constantly be de3eloping and fle7ible in their acti3ities+ owe3er in the modern day and age scientific management could result in employees becoming EspecialisedF in these tas1 and hence it could become their culture+ This could be a ma@or disad3antage as it could result in them becoming resistant to change and hence when consumers demand changes from one product to another it could pose a problem for managers+ Gowadays, many companies depend its successes for fle7ibility, adaptability and stay8in =the8art connection+ According to ?ruc1er, in order for an organization to succeed in the

%1st century, their organizationalHmanagement structure must be designed for Echange as the norm+F They must be proacti3e leaders of change rather than reacti3e followers+ According to ?anielle Sender , he belie3ed that this is an e7tremely effecti3e approach to management+ 4ith globalized operations and continuous technological ad3ances, organizations must be up8to8date with current fads+ A great e7ample of this is the ad3ent of social media+ Social networ1s connect millions of people, and companies must be in3ol3ed in these networ1s or they will be left behind+ )n the last few years, the world has witnessed the defeat of companies that refuse to familiarize themsel3es with new technologies and update their business practices in accordance with these technologies+ 6anagers, including public relations practitioners, must ma1e e7tensi3e use of social media tools, as they offer free insight into how publics percei3e their organization+ )n general, some ma@or factors of scientific management that are currently being successfully implemented in the %1st century, especially those organizations come from manufacturing factors, and the other specific ser3ices such as 6c?onalds and car manufacturing, scientific management plays an important role and will do so for the foreseeable future+ >n the other hand, the high demand for Duality from customers ma1es scientific management ha3e to change in structure to meet the needs of customers to satisfy those needs+ )f care has not been ta1en, it will be difficult to successfully adapt the scientific core principles as it will ma1e companies resistant to change+

Human relations approach, is it still empirical rather than assumptions?

uman relations approach is a basis theory that ser3ed a basis frame for many cooperati3e organizations base on+ uman relation focuses on the study of people beha3ior in a dynamic and social organization with the purpose of satisfying indi3idual needs+ The perspecti3e of uman 0elations Approach concerns that the organization becomes further than @ust a profit oriented enterprise, they become more than @ust a place to wor1 but also a medium for administering social interaction +0egarding to 6ayo 91(--, p+'-< the conseDuence of the social interaction in organization was the each personnel and the group as a whole themsel3es need to ad@ust into the industrial situation where their self determination and social welfare prioritized first and the wor1 itself is supplementary+ >ne of the main characteristics of the human relations approach is the group of employee ta1en as the main unit of analysis instead of indi3idual employee+ The other hallmar1 of this approach is the 3iewing of employee moti3ation in terms of social

'

needs rather than economic needs 9Iema1, %&&;<+ 6oreo3er, this theory relates to a systematic , de3eloping body of 1nowledge de3oted to e7plaining the beha3ior of indi3idual in the wor1ing organization+ Also, it emphasizes on the way of ma1ing more impro3ement in the producti3e use of wor1ing performance through process of indi3idual Bs attitudes and integrated wor1s+ Purpose of human relations is a continuous progress of consolidation of employeesB morale and con3ersation communication and @ob satisfaction+ Basing on perception of understanding indi3idualBs interest and capabilities of needs and goals relating to the aim of wor1ing organization, it helps employees in term of aid from anticipating the problems, or at least to resol3e more effecti3ely those that he or she cannot a3oid+ $rom the early times, 6aslow, 6cAregor, erzberg and 6c"lelland de3eloped four main principals that help managers to understand the need of employees and what can moti3ate their followers in an effecti3e way+ 6aslow 91(#;< created the theory of moti3ation in the fi3e needs of pyramid hierarchy 9 Physiology needs, Safety needs, Social needs, Jsteem needs, and Self8actualization needs<+ e argued that each le3el in the needs hierarchy must be substantially satisfied before the need becomes dominant+ An indi3idual mo3es up the needs hierarchy from one le3el to one le3el+ >n the other hand, 6cAregor 91(:&< proposed two assumptions about human nature theory K and theory L+ The former showed a negati3e 3iew of people which assumes that wor1ers ha3e little ambition, disli1e wor1s, want to a3oid responsibility and need to closely controlled to wor1 effecti3ely+ The latter is a positi3e 3iew demonstrates that employees en@oy wor1, see1 out and accept responsibility and be self8direction+ 4hile 6oti3ation8hygiene theory 9 erzberg, 1(#(< proposed two factors 9 which satisfied when it happens and which no longer moti3ates employees when they meet these needs<, 6c"lelland 9 1(:1< de3eloped three8needs theory in which he showed three types of people in wor1ing en3ironment 9 the first one lo3es to perform of do something better, the second wants to be with someone and en@oy mutual friendship, and the last one lo3es to ha3e an impact or ma1e an impressi3e on others<+ These theories are actually practical useful in the modern world, but still it holds some problems we must face in today wor1+ $or e7ample, not all people are dri3en by the same needs 8 at any time different people may be moti3ated by entirely different factors+ )t is important to understand the needs being pursued by each employee+ To moti3ate an employee, the manager must be able to recognize the needs le3el at which the employee is operating, and use those needs as le3ers of moti3ation+ Another problem regarded in 6aslows hierarchy is that the priority of needs is not absolutely accurate in some cultures+ )n fact, there is e3idence that contradicts the order of needs specified by the

model+ $or e7ample, some cultures appear to place social needs before any others+ 6aslowBs hierarchy also has difficulty e7plaining cases such as the 5star3ing artist5 in which a person neglects lower needs in pursuit of higher ones+ $inally, there is little e3idence to suggest that people are moti3ated to satisfy only one need le3el at a time, e7cept in situations where there is a conflict between needs+ As regards erbergs theory, this theory does not fully hold the water despite its wide acceptance+ Some say its methodology does not address the notion that when things are going well people tend to loo1 at the things they en@oy about their @ob+ 4hen things are going badly, howe3er, they tend to blame e7ternal factors+ Another common criticism is the fact that the theory assumes a strong correlation between @ob satisfaction and producti3ity+ erzbergBs methodology did not address this relationship, therefore this assumption needs to be correct for his findings to ha3e practical rele3ance+ 6oreo3er, erzberg did not pay attention to the 3ariable of indi3idual differences such as personality traits+ ?ifferent personality traits affect indi3idualsB uniDue responses to moti3ation or hygiene factors and also it contains an assumption that happy and satisfied wor1ers are more producti3e+ As the result it narrows the ma7imum le3el of other possibilities in outcome performance + 4hen the 6c"lellans theory is concerned, the wea1nesses of the 6c"lellands acDuired needs theory is that it ser3es little purpose in the public sector+ As stated in the article, public sector employees are being moti3ated by @ob security and stability, teamwor1 and worthwhile ser3ice to society, while eschewing monetary rewards, prestige and the desire for challenge and autonomy 9Mur1iewicz, 6assey N Brown 1((/, p+ %-1<+ $rom here, we can see that public sector employees are only high in affiliation and low in achie3ement and power+ 4hen this happen, superiors will find it hard to delegate tas1 and to create a competiti3e en3ironment between the employees in public sector, because they do not li1e challenging tas1 and that most of them are 3ery high in affiliation which are suitable in pro3iding customer ser3ice+ As the result, this issue will cause to the imbalance between different tas1s in public sectors+ Gowadays, as the en3ironment and technology has changed Duic1ly due to 3astly impacts of the globalization and the integrated world, there are many theories relating to human relations approach in moti3ation+ According to P+0obbins and 6arry "oulter, there are Aoal setting theory 9 the proposition that specific goals increase performance and that difficult goals, when accepted , result in higher performance than do easy goals<, 0einforcement theory 9 the theory that beha3ior is a function of its conseDuences<, Mob design theory 9 the way tas1s are combined to form complete @obs<, JDuity theory 9 which

shows that an employee compares his or her @obs input: outcomes ratio with that of rele3ant other and then corrects any ineDuity<, J7pectancy theory 9 indi3idual tends to act in a certain way, based on the e7pectation that the act will be followed by a gi3en outcome and on the attracti3eness of that to the indi3idual<+ owe3er, those theories ha3e to face with problems come from different cultures, different aspects of what is fundamentally the most important things to moti3ate and influence employees indi3idual+ These are especially serious when managers wor1 in a di3erse wor1force and ha3e to combine different of uniDue groups of wor1ers+ As it has been suggested by G+ M+ Adler with A+ Aundersen 9%&&/<, most current moti3ation theories were de3eloped in the Onited States by Americans and about Americans and as global business en3ironment , managers cannot automatically assume that all moti3ational programs will wor1 well in all different geographic locations and regarded different cultures as a whole+ $or e7ample, it can be e7ceedingly difficult or e3en misleading to apply 4estern theories to employees from Asia+ 4or1ers from Mapan appreciate being aspect and honorable with the title E super techniciansF , and recei3ing certificates and pins rather than moti3ated by money+ >ne 3iew, e7pressed by Stephen P+0obin and 6ary "oulter is that employees wor1ing in organization with different needs, personalities, s1ill, abilities and interests hold different e7pectations of their employers and different 3iews of what they thin1 their employers ha3e rights to e7pect of them+ That 3ariable has caused troubles in managing and controlling employees performance+ $or e7ample, those who are low in their personal interest often reDuire only wee1ly paid and stagnant tas1s of wor1s rather than challenging and EwinningF performance contests+ >thers with great deal of satisfaction in their @obs and are moti3ated to e7ert high le3els of effort+ 6oreo3er, other uniDue characteristics between men and women ha3e added stressful to this aspect+ 4hile men ha3e placed more importance on ha3ing autonomy in their @obs than do women, women appreciate opportunities to learn, con3enient and fle7ible wor1 hours, and good interpersonal relations+ "onseDuently, it is important to need a di3erse array of rewards to moti3ate employees with such di3erse needs+ This aspect is e7tremely play a profound impact on moti3ation professionals+ "ause their needs are different and distincti3e from a3erage people+

Conclusion
Both of scientific and human relations approach are suitable for the managers to apply within consideration what is the most suitable to specific areas in today business world+ 6anagers can actually learn from these theories because they pro3ide guidelines for manager to e7cel and ser3ed a frame to managers to de3elop the best solution for each issue+ Besides that, these theories also post some challenges to managers as they still ha3e wea1nesses in theory itself, thus managers must apply different aspects on different

1&

structures+ "learly, the roots of Scientific management and uman relations approach are ine7tricably embedded in the e3olution of management thought+

References:
Andrze@ uczyns1i, >rganizational Beha3iors, pg ;-; Aale "engage 5Iiterature "riticism from 1;&& to 1/&&5, 1((/ Frederick W+ Taylor, The Principles of Scientific 6anagement 9Gew Lor1: Gorton, 1(:' 6ayo, 5Team Performance 6anagement5 1((# ?a3id M+ Iema1, 9%&&;< 5Ieading students through the management theory @ungle by following the path of the seminal theorists: A paradigmatic approach5, 6anagement ?ecision, .ol+ ;% )ss: 1&, pp+1-&( = 1-%# 6aslow, 6oti3ation and Personality 9 Gew Lor1: 6cAraw ill, 1(#;< 6cAregor, The uman Side of Jnterprise 9 Gew Lor1: 6cAraw ill, 1(:&< erzberg, The 6oti3ation To 4or1 9 Gew Lor1: Mohm 4iley, 1(#(< 6c"lelland, The Achie3ing Society 9 Gew Lor1: .an Gostrand 0eihold, 1(:1< Mur1iewicz, "I, 6assey, T6 N Brown, 0A 1((/, C6oti3ation in public and pri3ate organizations: A comparati3e study, Public Producti3ity N 6anagement 0e3iew, 3ol+ %1, no+ -, pp+ %-&8%#&, from Mstor database+ P+0obbins and 6arry "oulter, E 6anagementF 1&th edition, page -:18-'% G+ M+ Adler with A+ Aundersen, )nternational ?imensions of >rganizational Beha3ior, #th ed+ 9"incinnati, > : South84estern "ollege Pub+, %&&/<+